1. Final Case Study**
Greg Licamele
EMSE 233
Nov. 21, 2006
(** and my 19th and final GW grad class!)

2. The Problem
 Personal preparedness levels stand at
about 50 percent. Raises three
questions:
• The other 50 percent?
• The depth of preparedness
• Where are people prepared?
 The cost of preparedness is often
cited as a roadblock.
 Preparedness is not integrated.

3. One Solution
 The Center for Personal
Preparedness Through Technology
• Based at GW’s School of Engineering
and Applied Science with collaboration
from the Columbian College for Arts and
Sciences and the GW Medical Center

4. Center for Personal Preparedness
Through Technology
 Mission: Examine the intersection
and integration of people’s daily lives
at home; the threats and
vulnerabilities they face from natural
and manmade sources; and how
technology can propel people into a
greater state of preparedness.

5. Center for Personal Preparedness
Through Technology
 Translation:
How do we use fun gadgets to wake
people up to the importance of
preparedness?

6. Center for Personal Preparedness
Through Technology
 Vision: To be positioned as the
preeminent, collaborative hub for
residents, first responders, academic
researchers, private sector
researchers, emergency managers
and others to convene and explore
new ideas – large and small – that
will advance preparedness at home
both in practice through research and
in theory through writing.

7. Long Term Goals
 Increase national preparedness
levels by 10 percent in 5 years to at
least 60 percent.
 Work closely to educate and test new
technology with younger people ages
12-19; early adapters to technology
and then more likely to increase
personal preparedness measures.

8. Strategic Research Goals
1.) Identify mainstream, current
technologies that could be adapted
for personal preparedness and
widespread use with minimal
additional cost to consumers.
2.) Identify how homes of all sizes can
include personal preparedness
measures already integrated. (how
can new systems at home make
preparedness second nature?)

9. Sectors
 Nine sectors will focus on projects.
 Multidisciplinary group of academic,
business, emergency management
and the public will support each
sector.
 Some sectors are project specific,
others focus on overarching issues.

10. Audit Sector
 This standing group will audit and
analyze technologies people use at
home for a baseline evaluation of
options.
 Provide recommendations on how
technologies can be adapted and
provided at minimal additional cost.

11. Cellular Sector
 70 percent of people in the U.S. have
cell phones.
 Study how cell phones, with such
high levels of penetration and
relatively inexpensive cost, can be
used for preparedness.
 NOAA Weather/All Hazards Radio.
 GPS Mapping.

12. Popular Device Sector
 Explore how popular music and
personal devices could aid
preparedness: deliver info to people.
 iPod or Zune could already contain
preparedness information based on
zip code registered to device.
 Zip code would provide threat and
vulnerability information.
 Examine other devices such as
Blackberries.

13. RFID Sector
 RFID tags currently used to track
products.
 GW’s AOL Home of the Future lab (in
Loudoun County) is currently looking
at RFID tags to replenish pantries.
 Could explore how emergency
supplies could be tracked at home
and remind people often to re-stock.
 Shelters/churches could use, too.

14. Home Systems Sector
 Comprehensive look at homes and
how preparedness could be
integrated into design.
 For example, MIT House research
looks at MITes, a home-based
sensoring system for real-time data.
 Adapt for air, water, etc.?
 Other home systems?

15. GIS Open Access Sector
 Make GIS data more accessible to
the public.
 Show vulnerabilities where people
live; i.e., nuclear/chemical plants,
flooding, etc.
 Potentially build on Google Earth
platform.

16. Computer Operating Systems Sector
 Use computer systems to broadcast
preparedness messages much like
the TV and radio Emergency Alert
System.
 Work with Microsoft, Apple and
Linux.
 Explore ways different levels of
government could deploy
information.

17. Economics and Distribution Sector
 Examine the social, political, policy
and economic factors of technology
distribution through collaborative
work with academics, the corporate
world, nonprofits, economists and
others.
 This group would present an
incremental plan over five years
aimed at narrowing the digital divide
in urban, rural and suburban
settings.

18. Research and Outreach Sector
 Publish scholarly papers that examine
the center’s research.
 Equally important will be the center’s
outreach efforts to the general public.
 Education through a Web site,
advertisements, newspaper articles,
demonstrations at key public events,
partnerships with FEMA/Red Cross.
 Cornerstone: outreach to children in
schools – early adopters.

19. Summary of Sectors
 Cellular Sector  Audit Sector
 Popular Device  Economics and
Sector Distribution Sector
 RFID Sector  Research and
 Home Systems Outreach Sector
Sector
 GIS Open Access
Sector
 Computer
Operating Systems
Sector

20. Six Boundaries
 Digital Divide: 32 percent/30 percent
 Electricity
 Language Access
 Market Forces
 Behavior Change
 Proprietary Information

21. Major Partners
 Computer/Software Developers
 Cellular/Wireless Technology Providers
 Emergency Managers and First
Responders
 Academic Institutions
 DHS and Other Government Entities
 Home Builders
 The Public

22. Center for Personal Preparedness
Through Technology
 Questions?